Messages - Nathaniel

Thane, but is law really necessary?!? I am skeptical. But the word combination "necessary evil" comes to mind. Like, it's necessary and unnecessary at the same time. Who knows? Perhaps all this stuff is held together by really smart attorneys at the top. However, I doubt I will go back to law school unless to keep playing some sort of "lawyer card" that everybody is forced to respect.

My latest revelation is that it's about being perfect on the job. So, you can go to just about any law school, do the bare minimum to pass, probably the same on the bar exam, and then start getting perfect on the job. I went to USC Law in 2007, a top-twenty law school. Now I am thinking about going back to law school. I don't really care where I go to law school now. As long as it's accredited. Then pass the bar. And then put perfection to the test on the job.

Of course, I think it should be noted that I already took thousands of LSAT practice problems, got a 166, and attended a "top-twenty" law school. Only now do I not really care about where I go to law school.

When I applied to USC Law in 2007, one place I got accepted, I wrote about how I was on welfare as a kid. I mentioned the times when I searched for empty cans and bottles. I even think I alluded to the time I searched in a garbage can and found a box of half-eaten pizza or when I found a cold Baby Ruth candy bar in a dumpster. What a rags-to-riches story my life is! Unless, of course, the absolute truth is we're all born rich. In that case, I didn't forfeit my wealth.

Yes, a legal education will help in these ways, but so too will training in mathematics. One question not always asked is whether one actually wants to do what law school is the prerequisite for: law practice. I strongly suggest the work of Morten Lund in this area. He's written three books on the realities of law practice. They're short, and a (very) real-world look at what law school leads to. I know everyone nags about reading this or that, but Lund's books really are important to see. If you read those and still agree, you're in much better position to carry on. If not, it's a cheap lesson.

Thane.

If I go back to law school, then I am going to be geared towards starting my own private practice. Law firm, shmall firm. Big law, shmig law. I think it's about private practice. But maybe that's just me. And I agree, math helps. You know what? I got an A in Pre-Calculus, Calculus I, and Calculus II before taking the LSAT or going to law school. I wonder if that helped me more than getting a 166 on the LSAT and then going to Gould School of Law at USC. You want to know why? Well, my theory is that everything is a machine and I postulate that in order to use a machine you must know calculus.

I haven't done a lot of research on the rankings, but it strikes me that NYU is ranked higher than Cornell. If you ask me, NYU is USC on the east. The conclusion I draw is that it doesn't really matter where you go at some point. I am curious to find out where that point is.

There are the usual suspects, of course--Oxbridge, Paris, Tokyo--usually because the competition is so fierce (with Tokyo and other Asian schools making Yale look a bit tepid by comparison). The Gourman Report is (or was) the reference for international comparisons--loose as those necessarily are--for those blue-bloods out there. I've no idea if there's a link, as they are (were) an old-fogey reference, long since overtaken by US News.

More to the point, anyone attending any Top 5 law school in the U.S. or any Top 2 law school anywhere else can get a cappuccino with surprising efficacy.

Thane.

I went to the University of Southern California Gould School of Law and I can make tons of money. That was ranked 17 back then. I am thinking about going back to law school to finish, although I have my doubts that I'll return to USC.

I have a feeling I am going to take the LSAT again and charge back into law school. But when I took the LSAT years ago in 2005, I got a perfect score on the logic games section under times conditions. You know what? Unless the market changes, I might be able to make big money only on that claim to fame. I got all the questions correct on the logic games section. Period. Did you?

I did. I got a 166 and went to the University of Southern California Gould Law School, one of those top-twenty or so law schools. And I didn't even graduate and I may never will! But I can already make big money. So, unless future data proves me wrong, I encourage others to follow in my foot steps.

What's the point of all this law stuff? I mean, is it really about becoming a servant of the court or is it more about getting better at reading and writing for other things? For example, I use the skills I have developed by going to law school for other things, like gaming. By going to law school I have improved my reading and writing abilities, and I have improved my critical thinking and logical reasoning abilities. And that comes in handy on www.gsn.com.

Because I like the argumentation and wordplay. In addition, I chose to go to law school because of the money-making factor. I mean, although the University of Southern California isn't T-14, I can make at least 100,000-1,000,000 dollars a year now--and I didn't even graduate! Although, I wonder if I owe that to either my LSAT score, 166, or other factors. I bet going to 'SC plays at least a marginal role in my vast money-making ability.